That's the model for public consumption. Get a couple of beers into a scientist (after hours, at a conference) and they often start venting about rivals.
And get most scientists talking to someone whom they perceive as being not academicically trained, or from a "lesser" institution, where the gap between the institutions involved is great enough, and the whole "my degree is bigger than yours" arrogance comes out...witness your treatment of Quix elsewhere in this thread.
But what's really interesting in this regard is that the "publish or perish" phenomenon has produced so many PhDs from "stellar" schools that there simply is not room for them at stellar schools, and the academic progeny are often forced to accept postings at schools which would otherwise be considered "beneath" them; while academic postings are often made on the basis of a "hot" thesis topic or other considerations. Examples include a posting of a Harvard English / Lit PhD bemoaning having to accept an academic position down in Georgia among the fundies; a personal anecdote (who shall remain unnamed) of a PhD in chemistry who was awarded a professorship at a Big Ten school on the strength of having cracked an intractable technological problem with his prof's apparatus as a grad student; a Cal Tech grad taking a professorship at a Minneapolis College which accepts 75% of its applicants; etc. etc.
A scientist is always aware that the conclusions they make on the basis of their research can be overturned or shown to be wrong by someone who approaches the same topic from a different direction. As a result, our language tends to be uncertain--the scientific literature is full of probabilistic language "might, possibly, could, suggests".
You happen to be incorrect; I have dealt with many arrogant scientists during my life.
I could give amusing personal anecdotes but it would necessarily lead to "too much information" syndrome.
In the meantime, here's another Dilbert strip or two for the amusement of lurkers.
Cheers!